Ask a question

Which Of Theses Four Best Describes Hilary And Her Chance At Election

Has the mudslinging in the primary undermined the chances to elect a democrat as president in 2008?

Definately, yes....John McCain has been handed enough fuel against Barack Obama via Hillary Clinton and Obama will be confronted by Clinton's "Anti-Obama" sound bites from the campaign trail of the Democratic presidential nominee race. Hillary and Bill Clinton have both continually trashed Obama , so how will they say they can support him later should he be the Democratic nominee? The Clinton's have steadfastly said, "Obama is not ready, nor experienced enough to be president, like Hillary Clinton or even my future opponent, John McCain! The Democratic Party will be divided and this situation will carry-over into the 2008 Demo convention and general election, not to mention 2012, where Hillary will once again make a run for the presidency should she be unsuccessful to against Barack Obama! Thanks, in large part to the Clinton's, Obama will not beat John McCain in the general presidential election...any support from them will be looked upon as insincere as they trashed Obama, his name and family, his stand on the issues and his credibility and his needed experience to even be in the presidential race. The Republican Party will remind America of this over and over in TV commercials! The Democrats will not win in 2008, they have met the enemy and it is the Clinton's who have damaged a fellow-Democrat beyond repair with personal attacks for no other reason than to unfairly distort and discredit him in an attempt to take the Demo nomination in 2008! Barack Obama will be forced to do damage control, while John McCain talks issues and solutions! Hillary & Bill Clinton will continue to attack Barack Obama's credibility insuring he will lose in 2008 as she wants to run again in 2012, where Obama will be history after his 2008 loss to McCain! This is the price one pay's when they oppose the Clinton's who are professionals when it comes to character assassinations, which Barack Obama found out first-hand! The Democratic Party will suffer from no unity in November, a direct result for blaming "Black America" for supporting Barack Obama by the Clinton's & their supporters and it will come back to haunt the party at the convention before all is said and done! Black America and communities have had about all they are going to take from Bill and Hillary Clinton trashing Barack Obama and it will clearly show at the Democratic convention!

What would Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the 2020 Presidential election again President Trump?

While Hillary did win the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million voters, and while Trump stole millions of tax payers dollars by making up an illegal commission to disprove this………..by getting lists of who voted for who across the country, most of us who voted for her voted for the lesser of two evils. A moderate Republican would have gotten many of our Democratic votes.We didn’t forget her dirty campaign against Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries.Questions about Hillary like this are really getting old. Her career is over, and not early enough.The Democrats have had, under poor leadership in Congress and the DNC, three failed Congressional and State elections in a row.Running Hillary again after two failed campaigns would be the death of the party. Right now, her chances of winning against ANY candidate would be about the same as the chances for a Mars landing next year.Quora Democratic questioners need to stop asking about Hillary, Biden, Bernie and Warren and start asking questions about Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Ruben Gallego, Joe Kennedy III, Cory Booker and other rising stars in the Democratic party in Congress.Above photo; during better times.

Everybody deserves a second chance, so why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton fight for the presidential race in 2020? Isn't she the best candidate for the title of 'first woman president' of the USA?

“Everybody deserves a second chance” is just cliché, kind of an endorsement of the idea that people can change.There’s no reason Clinton should not fight for the presidential race in 2020 if that’s how she chooses to spend her early 70’s.She clearly thinks she’s the best candidate for first woman president.I’d pick Nikki Haley in a heartbeat.Far greater mental agility on camera;Firmness that doesn’t invite easy ridicule;An accounting degree (remember those federal budgets?);Executive experience (she was the governor, not her husband);Married to a military veteran (versus an artful draft-dodger);And so on and on.I think the main factor that will determine Clinton’s decision: whether she can raise even more money than the excess she had over the last opponent, because twice what Trump had clearly wasn’t enough and he is virtually certain to be the opponent again.PS: for a chuckle, a knee-slapper or a laugh-out-loud -and-spill-your-drink moment, here’s now Bloomberg (Michael hates Donald) covered the difference in campaign spending:“He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S.”He didn’t win the money race?? That gets a second question mark.“Winning the money race” should be measured in votes earned per dollar spent. He lapped his opponents on that metric, but not in Bloomberg-berg.

Who will win the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and why? Which party: Democrat or Republican? Which nominees are the most likely to win their party's nomination? How much will the gender or "race" of candidates influence the 2016 election?

I think there is a high chance Trump will win if Hillary makes the predictable mistake. This mistake would be calling those who support Trump idiots (she has almost done that already but not quite).I am from England and our politicians have made this mistake 3 times. Firstly it was the European elections saying that only idiots would vote for UKIP. The same thing happened in the next general election where UKIP got the a massive amount of votes (sadly only 1 seat in parliament because of how our system works). And then it happened with the Brexit vote as well.Through all these votes, those who supported UKIP or the leave campaign have been called every name imaginable- fruit cakes, lunatics, loonies, swivel-eyed idiots, racists, nazis, xenophobes etc etc.The only thing that insulting your voters does is to make them even more keen to vote for the other side. There were many people torn between voting Conservative or UKIP, however many would have voted UKIP eventually after being insulted by the people who are asking for your vote. “You are a complete imbecile, but I would really appreciate your vote, thank you”Our politicians did not learn from their mistake the first time it happened and they still haven’t learned. And now I can see Hillary doing the exact same thing. From what I have seen Trump insults a lot of people, but he tries to avoid insulting the electorate too much, even those who support Hillary. Hillary and the Democrats however seem to be attacking Trump supporters more often and it is only a matter of time before Hillary outright says what they are thinking- “all you guys who support Trump are redneck racist idiots” (actually I hear this a lot on Quora already)So overall insulting Trump voters is one way to make the undecided voters side with him. Undecided voters see themselves as partially supporting both candidates so it is a bad a idea to start calling them idiots if you want their vote.EDIT 11/03/2016: Looks like I was correct, doesn’t it!EDIT 11/09/2016: Looks like I was very correct indeed!

Was the NYT wrong to predict prior to the election a victory for Hillary Clinton at 95% probability?

What most people do not understand is that there is no such thing as the “true” probability of anything. Probability is a consequence of a model chosen to describe reality. It is not reality itself. The NYT had a model that it hoped would accurately describe reality. That model said 95% probability. Other people had different models that gave different probabilities.What we cannot know with certainty is whether some other model — perhaps one that gave a lower probability or perhaps even one that predicted a Trump win — was even better than the NYT model. That Mr. Trump won is certainly some evidence another such model might be better, but even his win is not enough to convince us that the other model would be better since maybe the election turned out in a very unlikely way. Maybe just enough people who had planned to vote for Sec. Clinton woke up on Tuesday sick or with a sick kid or got too busy at work or whatever. We can never know what might have been. So maybe this election was evidence that Mr. Trump’s position was much stronger than their model predicted or maybe Mr. Trump just “sucked out” (poker term for getting lucky and defeating a much better hand).In the end, the important lesson to learn is that models are just models. When you put too much faith in your model, you become blind to the possibility that your model is flawed. It’s bad in science. It’s bad in statistics. It’s just bad. So build the best model you can. Tell people what your model predicts. But don’t let them place too much stock in your model.

Can Hillary Clinton still become President of the United States?

Not really, no.She has lost twice, failing to get her party’s nomination in 2008 and losing the general election in 2016. She will be 73 in 2020, and in polls nearly 70% of Democrats do not want her to run again. It is highly unlikely that she would receive the backing of major Democratic donors or party leaders again. She has also expressed no desire to run again, and there are no examples of presidential candidates losing twice and then successfully being elected on a third try. The last candidate who lost a general election and managed to be nominated by their party a second time was Richard Nixon in 1968, which was before the modern primary system was put in place (which started in 1972).She remains deeply unpopular with significant numbers of Americans, and was one of the most unpopular major party nominees in history — while she did win the popular vote by a wide margin in 2016, she still lost a winnable race to an unfit candidate, and many of those who voted for her were mainly voting against her opponent rather than out of strong support for her personally.It is therefore exceedingly difficult to even imagine a possible chain of events in which Clinton would be the Democratic nominee in 2020, let alone win the general election. And it seems highly unlikely that she would even run.Hillary Clinton is now a part of the past. As a public figure she will not completely disappear; she will speak out on issues that matter to her and will continue to give talks and probably write another book or two.But her political career is over. The Clintons are the past. Move on.

In your own words, how would you describe the 2008 Presidential Election?

To answer your question;

The 2008 election is very important for two reasons.

1) Will America capitulate to our enemies? One side wants to cut and run, the other does not.

2) Will America adopt more socialism? One side wants to take over 1/3 of the US economy in socializing US Health Care Industry, the other side does not.

These two questions will determine the viability of the United States, and its future with the Election of 2008.